but likewise we have to kick them out for the right reasons, we can't just kick people we've allowed in out for no reason. And even more have to make sure that they aren't returning to unjust persecution. Our legal system doesn't allow evidence obtained through torture so its somewhat hypocritical for us to send someone to be tried on exactly that evidence. The new treaty if it can be proved enforceable, which would guaranty deportees protection from such evidence in a trial is a step I'm happy with.

The European convention on human rights is way too important for all our rights just to junk for this. Having not had a proper revolution and the chance to develop a constitution in this country most of our other rights come down from the magna carta.

Not at all. We do not have to kick them out for the right reasons, we can kick them out for any reason at all. And frankly any persecution that the likes of abu Hamza, Qatada etc get is not "unjust". If you read the UN asylum laws, they specifically exempt people who are a danger to the host country from being eligible for asylum.

I don't care whether they drill his kneecaps or flay him alive. These things happen to lots of people in Jordan but we do nothing to prevent it. Now that Qatada is here suddenly this must not happen to him because for some undefined reason his well being is vitally important but other Jordanians' does not.

I've not had answer to what British rights are safeguarded by the ECHR. If Qatada finally gets sent home then how does that damage the rights of Britons?

We already have laws in the UK to protect human rights. If we leave the EHCR, it's not like murder suddenly becomes legal.

What rights do we not already have under UK law that we should have?

AHhh ok now I get your misunderstanding. Murder is a crime under law and is nothing to do with human rights. Think about it like this. Laws cover what you can't do, rights cover what you can do.

For example, everyone in the UK, on being tried for a crime has a right to a fair trial and a right to be tried by his peers if they choose. Rights tend to come from, not laws but conventions, constitutions, or some sort of charter. As I mentioned in my previous post, most of our rights in the UK, once you remove the ECHR come from the Magna Carta, I'm sure you'll agree that things have moved on since then.

AHhh ok now I get your misunderstanding. Murder is a crime under law and is nothing to do with human rights. Think about it like this. Laws cover what you can't do, rights cover what you can do.

For example, everyone in the UK, on being tried for a crime has a right to a fair trial and a right to be tried by his peers if they choose. Rights tend to come from, not laws but conventions, constitutions, or some sort of charter. As I mentioned in my previous post, most of our rights in the UK, once you remove the ECHR come from the Magna Carta, I'm sure you'll agree that things have moved on since then.

Laws also cover your rights, you have the right not to be murdered because there is a murder law. The right to vote is also covered by various Acts of Parliament as is your right to a fair trial (also habeus corpus).

We already have our rights safeguarded by our own laws. The ECHR gives us very little that we do not already have. We do not need it.

I'm not against a formal constitution that would put everything in layman's terms to make it easier to know our rights.

Laws also cover your rights, you have the right not to be murdered because there is a murder law. The right to vote is also covered by various Acts of Parliament as is your right to a fair trial (also habeus corpus).

We already have our rights safeguarded by our own laws. The ECHR gives us very little that we do not already have. We do not need it.

I'm not against a formal constitution that would put everything in layman's terms to make it easier to know our rights.

Sorry but you're wrong. The act of murder is an offence under English law. The law does not specify that you have the right not to be murdered, just that if you commit the act you have committed an offence and will be tried and convicted under the definition of that act in law.

The right to vote is different again, and without going in to lots of tedious detail, why do you think we have a Parliament and 'constitutional monarchy'? It comes from the Magna Carta once again (which is of course a charter). The laws you state just define the framework of the election, not the actual right to vote.

Please have a look through the link in my previous email. There is lots of good stuff in there not covered in UK law.

Sorry but you're wrong. The act of murder is an offence under English law. The law does not specify that you have the right not to be murdered, just that if you commit the act you have committed an offence and will be tried and convicted under the definition of that act in law.

The right to vote is different again, and without going in to lots of tedious detail, why do you think we have a Parliament and 'constitutional monarchy'? It comes from the Magna Carta once again (which is of course a charter). The laws you state just define the framework of the election, not the actual right to vote.

Please have a look through the link in my previous email. There is lots of good stuff in there not covered in UK law.

The law does not need to specify that you have the right not to be murdered. It is implicit and derives from the law.

I've read the link before but as I said before what do you think is there that we do not have already? IMO basically nothing.

Magna Carta specifies that there should be a parliament, it certainly does not specify the right of universal sufferage. This came later in various acts of parliament. A fresh "convention" was not necessary.

The law does not need to specify that you have the right not to be murdered. It is implicit and derives from the law.

so you agree with me, in that its a law that defines what you can't do, fair enough!

I've read the link before but as I said before what do you think is there that we do not have already? IMO basically nothing.

if so why do you want to junk it, which bits don't you like?

Magna Carta specifies that there should be a parliament, it certainly does not specify the right of universal sufferage. This came later in various acts of parliament. A fresh "convention" was not necessary.

Again the laws in that instance define the process, saying you have a right to vote is not the same as the definition of the electoral process. They are separate, maybe wrongly so but thats why Europe has no say in our actual electoral system. Incidentally, one of the bits of the Magna Carta still not superseded is the right to due process, you could argue that this is one of the problems in this instance.

so you agree with me, in that its a law that defines what you can't do, fair enough!if so why do you want to junk it, which bits don't you like?Again the laws in that instance define the process, saying you have a right to vote is not the same as the definition of the electoral process. They are separate, maybe wrongly so but thats why Europe has no say in our actual electoral system. Incidentally, one of the bits of the Magna Carta still not superseded is the right to due process, you could argue that this is one of the problems in this instance.

It defines what you can't do but implicitly it defines what others can't do to you thus creating a right. If I am murdered then those responsible will be persued by the legal system. In fact if someone even attempts it or threats it then they will also be dealt with (or should be). Thus a right is created.

The problem with the ECHR is that it creates the responsibility for the British government to ensure that a Jordanian citizen is not tortured by the Jordanian authorities. This is nonsense and needs to go. Qatada has the right not to be tortured by the British government and that's as far as it should go.

The right to vote did not come in until the 20th century before that *some* people had the right to vote. The right to universal sufferage of adults over 18 and resident in the UK was enshrined in an act of parliament. Nothing to do with Magna Carta which was about the rights of feudal barons.